Ruling Against Illegals’ Gun Rights Threatens All Gun Owners

I have a feeling this piece is going to win me very few friends among the Armed Intelligentsia, but as I have said before, I am a completely no-compromise kind of guy when it comes to civil rights. And I fully agrees with L. Neil Smith when he says the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.[1] This is why it really offends my izzat to see conservatives rejoicing in court rulings that deny people their right to keep and bear arms, and mocking the antis for not joining in the celebration . . .

Case in point is Raquel Okyay’s piece on the 10th Circuit Court ruling in United States v. Huitron-Guizar:

On May 7, the US Court of Appeals in the District of Wyoming affirmed a lower court’s decision that illegal immigrants do not have a right to own firearms under the US Constitution. …

A ruling being hailed by many as a “no brainer” since persons who are here illegally do not and should not possess Second Amendment rights; yet barely a mention from the anti-gun lobby even though the law keeps guns out of the hands of would be dangerous criminals.

Okay folks, I say this to the antis and now I’m saying it to you: you can’t have it both ways. Either the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility,[2]or it is a privilege, granted to the individual by the government and subject to revocation via the democratic process or arguments grounded in social utility.

According to the Wall Street Journal (as quoted by ImmigrationDirect.com), Huitron-Guizar came to America when he was three, had lived his entire life in Wyoming and had no criminal record. Now I know people are going to say that he was a criminal by virtue of his being here illegally, but he was brought here when he was three years old.

Similar to the way all ‘persons,’ whether non citizens or illegal residents, have a Fifth Amendment right to an indictment of a grand jury before being held for a capital crime, Huitron-Guizar sought to possess the right to own and carry firearms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, yet the court found that ‘the people’ phrased in the Second Amendment has a narrower confine than the term ‘persons’ in the Fifth Amendment.

And this is supposed to be a good thing?!? I don’t know about anyone else, but I believe the courts should read the Second Amendment at least as broadly as they read the rest. After all, what part of shall not be infringed is so hard to interpret?

The court also found that it is incumbent upon Congress to furnish laws that keep “instruments of deadly force from those deemed irresponsible or dangerous” and ultimately “crime control and public safety are indisputably important interests.”

Again, we are supposed to be in favor of this? This is the exact same kind of argument the antis use when they want to ban “high capacity” magazines or widen the list of prohibited persons to include “suspected terrorists” or “mentally ill” who haven’t been adjudicated a threat to anyone. Raquel even acknowledges this in following paragraphs:

Brady campaign president Dan Gross encourages the public to sign a statement ‘Against Arming Dangerous People’ for submittal to congress. The statement defines dangerous people as: Convicted felons, convicted domestic abusers, terrorists, and people found to be dangerously mentally ill.

Yet, there are plentiful laws to support gun restrictions from the four identified groups. Gross states the obvious restrictions that most Americans agree upon in an attempt to create an illusion that these restrictions do not exist. Rather, he is trying to convince us of the oxymoron that gun control laws that harass innocent Americans actually protect innocent Americans, when we know they do not.

Any time we allow that there are “some people” who shouldn’t have guns, we strengthen the antis’ arguments and weaken our position. How can we be opposed to “closing the gun show loophole” if we agree that illegals shouldn’t have guns (ignoring the fact that the proposed “loophole closing” legislation would imprison show organizers for actions completely beyond their control).

If there are “some people” who shouldn’t have guns, we can’t oppose the Lautenberg amendment (ignoring the fact that restraining orders are commonly abused in nasty divorces).

If there are “some people” who shouldn’t have guns, we can’t oppose mental health checks for gun owners (according to the CDC more than 10% of Americans take anti-depressants and over 50% of the population over 40 has taken them at one time or another).

No, as National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea says: If someone can’t be trusted with a gun then they can’t be trusted without a custodian, and we allow incremental reduction of our rights at our peril.

In this case, where does one deport a person who has spent, essentially his entire life here? I know he is illegally here, but is is “justice” to send a person like this to a country where he or she might have no connection, no way of supporting him/herself, and might not even know the language?

“to send a person like this to a country where he or she might have no connection, no way of supporting him/herself, and might not even know the language?”

Like when they jumped the boarder and came over to a country on their own accord without knowing the language having no way to support themselves and no friends? Let them figure it out back down south. Or ship em out to sea, whichever.

I doubt that when he was three he was really thinking about the future legal implications of following his parents. And if he lived here his entire cognizant life, he might just feel as “American” as you do. I am not talking about an adult who chooses to come here illegally. I am just talking about the cases like this one.

I love it when Neocons extol the virtues of small government and the free market while pissing and moaning about how all the illegals took ther jerbs. If someone can walk through a hundred miles of desert climb over or dig under a fence and then do your job better and cheaper than you can, you don’t deserve it.

what is so hard about if you are not a US citizen then you dont have the rights of a US citizen? Constitutional rights are for US citizens. period. your obsession with “guns for everyone” mentality has nothing to do with this issue. its a pretty straight forward and clear concept.

You’re right, the BoR doesn’t grant privileges from the government – however, it’s protection of those rights only applies to US citizens. Hence why Canadians can’t claim that the 2nd Amendment gives them a right to bear arms.

No, Chris. A Canadian who later becomes a US citizen shall not have those rights infringed. Just because you’re passing through or snuck in doesn’t give you the same privilege of having your rights protected.

It’s like how if you’re in a fellow family members home – you have full range to eat what you want from the fridge, whereas someone just passing through and you barely know does not, nor does a burglar have that privilege.

Again, you’re completely missing the point. You can’t have it both ways.

Either the 2nd Amendment protects a god-given, fundamental human right (in which case you don’t get to pick and choose who gets that right), or it’s a privilege given by the government.

Your analogy about having free run of the family fridge makes perfect sense for a privilege. Rights are inherent to man whether their government recognizes them or not. Again, with the Canadian example….legally, the US 2nd Amendment isn’t compelling in Canada. No, the 2A does not mean Canada has to give their citizens guns. However, we generally believe the 2A recognizes that all people have a right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, defense of country, defense from country, etc.

It’d be like saying freedom of religion and conscience are god given rights, but all illegals have to be Catholic. Tough beans, they’re not here legally, they don’t get constitutional protections.

You totally missed the point of what I said. I pointed out that while you still have those rights, you only get the LEGAL PROTECTION of them by being a US citizen AND being in the US. Your First amendment rights mean jack if you take a trip to China, just like someone from another country coming here doesn’t suddenly get the legal right to bear arms.

The Constitution protects the rights we all have – but you only get those protections IF you meet the criteria of 1) be a US citizen 2) be in the US at the time.

I understand the point you’re making, I’m merely pointing out that the sentiment is hypocritical in context.

Again, it’d be like saying “I believe in a universal, fundamental, god-given right to religious freedom, but only citizens have that right protected. So, illegals? Sucks to be you, but you’ve gotta convert to Buddhism under penalty of 25 years in federal prison.” Even if that were legally true (it’s not), *we should all be 100% opposed to the idea*, because we support religious freedom as a god-given fundamental human right.

If we as 2A advocates believe in a fundamental right to keep and bear arms, we should be in favor of protecting that right for all. Not just the people we agree with or like.

“First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6)

When you give the government the right to pick and choose who the 2A protects–Not illegals, not felons [broadly defined], not the mentally ill, not those convicted of domestic violence [broadly defined], not those who’ve been put on an involuntary psych hold, etc, etc–you’re giving the government the power to eventually decide you’re in one of those prohibited classes. I’m not ok with that.

Do we not recognize the protected human right of anyone in the US (legal immigrant, illegal immigrant, visitor, citizen) to free speech, freedom of religion, a jury trial, privacy, protection against self-incrimination and unwarranted search and seizure, etc?

Of course you have to be in the US, but anyone in the US should have basic human rights recognized, citizen or not. Do you think a Canadian visitor to the US cannot speak his mind without being imprisoned? Of course not. RKBA is exactly the same. Whether we should deport the illegal immigrants or forget about controlling our borders is a different question not within the scope of a site devoted to firearms, but a person within the US not convicted of any crime has the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. 2A says “people”, not “citizens”.

As a non-citizen who worked damned hard and jumped through a lot of hoops to get a Green Card, I am sick to death of the media and the left (but I repeat myself) pushing the idea that the “illegal” in “illegal immigrant” is just a typo, or some sort of terrible insult dreamed up by conservatives to deny these poor, deserving wretches their natural, Marx-given right to welfare, free schools and free medical care. If you are here illegally, you are breaking the law. You are a criminal. Criminals can and are denied the right to own firearms. Finis.

+2. Loads of money poured into the legal process, interviews at embassies, baring my past in great detail, waving access to welfare and other assistance, providing documentation ad nauseam. I don’t even know how often I was finger printed and background checked merely for the greencard process.

I can’t fault anyone for trying to have a shot at a better life by illegally crossing the border and I do believe that there should be a path to legal residence for children unwittingly brought here at young age who have no memory of the country they were born in.

I am the son of legal immigrant who eventually became a citizen. I have a cousin who has tried for the last 6yrs to “LEGALLY” to come to the USA. These guys jump the boarder and all of sudden, the left likes to say — oh well — since they are here already…. BS, given the left has also made it illegal to check for citizenship when voting, it is a way for them to stack the voting box.

The “finis” is when you are CONVICTED of a crime. Let’s not forget that caveat, or our adversaries will beat us to death with it. I don’t know that being an illegal immigrant is a “crime”, in fact, don’t recall what the sentence might be. It calls for removal from the country, to a country where the person is a citizen, at worst, there is no trial, verdict, or sentence. And no revocation of the natural right to keep and bear arms.

I agree, American citizens get American rights. we pay taxes and join the military to keep our rights. If someone wants to come here to free load and not help keep the rights they do not deserve them. Granted many will argue that we have enough “citizens” that have done the same as illegals with freeloading and disabled may not be able to partake of the efforts even if they wanted to, but these others were given the status citizen so they get the rights. And as far as the illegals, if you want rights then do the right thing and become a citizen, if your not a citizen you do not get the rights of a citizen. The constitution refers to the people and persons as those citizens of the United States, how do we know if the illegals are here friendly to us or for other reasons “cough” terrorism “cough”. Simply put if you want the rights of an American citizen then take the responsibilities and such that go with it.

Sorry… you don’t get the same allowances when you’re breaking the law. The right of self-determination is a fundamental right but when you’re in prison your options are – ostensibly rightfully – limited.

Same deal here – do illegals have God-given rights to own/use firearms? Sure, but when they live in a country they have to accept its rules, and when you’re here illegally you are fundamentally breaking the law. You have violated the basic laws of man/society and as a result you don’t get anything. NO rights/freedoms/privileges/whatever. If you want to enjoy your God-given stuff, do so on your own time without violating the sanctity of another’s life, especially an entire country’s.

“We the people of the United States” referring to US citizens. Illegals do not have constitutional protection of these rights. Had they gone through the naturalization process, they would be.

Corruption in Mexican society has let conditions get as bad as they are now, which has lead to the mass migration to the US. Mexican citizens allowed their government to chip away at their ability to hit the reset button, and now are screwed. Unless they rise up, Mexico will be officially a failed state. The US can’t openly violate Mexico’s sovereignty without being accused of invasion. Mexican citizens can’t tool up without being considered enemies of the state.

Lots of bad with no end in sight. I don’t blame them for wanting to jump the border, but I don’t have to like the results that weigh on our society either.

I’d like to know why conservatives are so antagonistic to illegal immigrants. Yeah, I understand you all believe we take your jobs, consume government resources, and “taint” your culturally heterogeneous nation.

I know old-fashioned conservatives ie extreme libertarian ideologues who are completely into full open borders.

Government resources? It is more like tax money stolen by the government from a taxpaying American named Joe to pay an illegal named Sam. There are a huge number of reasons from the strain on our health care and educational systems to the introduced crime wave to the damage to the environment. I’m not a conservative or liberal. I’m open to people from any race, religion, and ethnic group to apply to come here. I’m not into open borders.

Toten, speaking as a US Citizen who walked into an ER (without insurance) while having a heart attack (literally; they were passing my EKG around saying “See? This is what a heart attack looks like in the first 30 minutes”) I have to say I am very glad they had a policy saying that patients were all to be treated the same, regardless of ability to pay.
When I left the hospital almost 2 weeks later I had a brand new zipper on my chest and a bill of right around $85,000.
Fortunately the insurance from my last job was still in effect.
Unfortunately they only covered 80% of major medical up to $100K.
80% sounds great until you figure out that your portion of an $85K hospital bill is $17,000. Thank G-d for equity loans.

Okay, then Mexicans are racist also, because Mexican immigration laws are much tougher than the laws here.

We’re damn sick and tired of people like you calling us racists while thinking you have the right to come here and freeload off of our system. Tell you what, since we’re all racists and it makes you uncomfortable, move back to where you came from. You won’t be missed.

I’m Guatemalan. Yeah, Mexican laws are tough. Not just immigration, in all senses. But the people themselves don’t treat foreigners badly. When I lived in the U.S., most of my white neighbors were very kind and accepting. But you go out and you meet lots of pricks that see you are dark-skinned and automatically assume you are up to no good. Now that I live in Mexico, I face no discrimination. The most I get is a jab at my accent.

Get rid of the whole welfare state, and conservatives would be a lot more relaxed on the topic. You can have open borders OR a welfare state, but not both – not unless you are the poorest nation on earth.

Contribute nothing? Who do you think frames houses, shingles roofs, digs ditches, picks food? Now, you can easily point out that these workers cause negative income pressure, but many, many illegals contribute to our economy.

Calling what mexicans do on a job site contributing to the economy is very nice of you. They have to do the shittiest work ever. Exterior walls 1.5 inches out of plumb over 6ft. stairs that are an inch out of level across the tread. Worthless, in 20 years all these subdivisons with these crap houses are going to crumble to the ground.

Alfonso, if someone (of any race) comes to this country legally this is my response… “Welcome brother, welcome sister. May you succeed in all of your endeavors and may you and your family prosper for all times.” If you come here illegally my response is quite different. “Get the F out!” Why do so many people fail to understand the difference between legal and illegal?

The “illegals” as u named pay taxes and cant get welfare because they don have SSN and fake SSN dont pass for that, now thats not the point on this, we are talking abouth the Righ to keep and bear firearms, I knew an Illegal who had a pistol in his car for protection then a guy with a shotgun get in one store he was in the parking lot he saw the bad guy pointing the shotgun to the bussines owner head and he decide to help him and he shut the bad guy, he save the bussines owner life because the bad guy had just shoot another person in the store and was about to kill the man, now because he was illegal he must leave the bussines owner and other people in the store die?, now they have Righ to pay taxes follw the law and also the Righ to die because they cant defend themselves and others in the comunity?

How do they pay taxes? If they are here illegally, they have not social security #. Which means, they are not paying Federal Income Tax, State Income Tax, FICA, Unemployment Tax, Medicaid/Medicare Taxes, Fire Taxes or School Taxes

I’m sorry, sales tax does not count. Property Tax as part of rent is also another BS example. Unless that person is paying what other “legal citizens” are paying, its just lip service.

In the meantime, if they get sick, get injured or we send the children of illegals to school, everyone else is paying. The IIHS says few if any even go through the proper procedure to have auto insurance or register their cars even in states where they can get drivers licenses.

@Pascal… With a Federal Tax ID. That’s the funniest part of all. With one hand our govt takes their tax revenue and with the other hand clenches a fist, threatening to to deport them as illegal aliens (which they are–no )dispute there.

Don’t think so. None of those other ones are in the BoR. Otherwise, the slippery slope could go the other way. If the BoR do not apply to illegals, then they don’t apply to green card holders either. Picture that as it applies to 4A and 5A. So yeah, 2A should apply to them just as 1,3,4,5,6, etc. As. The BoR apply to all who are on our soil. Rights of citizenship apply to all citizens home and abroad.
One more thing, being illegal alien is not a criminal offense in the US, but hiring one is. That is why US deserters stopped going to Canada ten years ago. Canadian employers said “Here illegally and no work visa? Go home, I’m not going to jail for your ass.” Word got back to others who didn’t read the fine print on their enlistment contracts. End of problem.
The only countries that criminalize overstaying your visa or whatever are shit holes like Mexico and Iran.

tdiinva: Don’t be silly, of course they can’t vote! But voting “rights” are actually a privilege, they are not pre-existing, G-d given rights like freedom of worship, speech, assembly, self-defense (i.e. keep and bear arms) etc.. This is why saying that the BoR “does not apply” to illegals is, again, silly because those are natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, and civil rights.

Self-determination, by definition, only applies to yourself. In our current voting system, the results of the vote are forced on everyone, including those who didn’t vote for the winner and even those who chose to abstain in order to rule themselves. That is not self-determination. That’s mob rule.

What comes next; protecting the so-called civil and constitution rights of convicted um people residing in prisons to own and carry guns to protect themselves? After all, prison guards aren’t always right there to break up a prison fight, gang beating, rape, or murder attempt and yelling for help doesn’t always work.

With respect to some of the comments, I think they miss Bruce’s point. He is saying that if gun ownership is a “human right”, even more fundamental than a mere “constitutional right”, then just because a person is not a citizen under the US Constitution, our government should not be empowered to infringe upon the “human right” of gun ownership. This argument flows from the belief that some amendments to the Constitution did not create new rights, but rather reinforced and reaffirmed rights we simply by being G-d’s children. Some argue that the second amendment is one such amendment. Others tweak this and say while the right to self defense is a human right, the right to gun ownership derives from the constitution (and the retort is, of course, that the former cannot exist without the latter in today’s world).

By way of analogy, we would probably all agree that visa-holding visitors and even illegal immigrants have some rights under our laws, for example, not to be summarily executed, raped, tortured etc. and to be able to enforce our laws in some circumstances, because a system of laws otherwise would be barbaric. By way of example, although we might all frown on female illegal immigrants, we could all agree that notwithstanding her presence on US soil is illegal, she has a fundamental human right not to murdered or raped if her only purpose in being here is to seek a better life for herself or her children. There might be other rights created by statute, such as the right to a driver’s license or the right to vote, that we could legitimately say the government has the power to deny non-citizens.

So then the question arises, where does a federal or state government get the power to disarm illegal immigrants? This is really the question he is asking. If you believe the government should have no power other than what the people grant it, you have to answer this question, and depending upon what one believes about the nature of the 2ndA, it is not so easy to answer.

Green card holders and legal visitors to the US are granted rights by statute and not Constitution. Visas and green cards are issued on the basis of good behavior. You can be here legally for 50 years, break the law and be deported. The Constitution is not a universal document. It is only meant to apply to citizens. The right to bear arms may follow from natural law but the constitution only protects US citizens residing in US territory. Following your line of thinking you could claim your rights in any jurisdiction.

So are you saying that as originally enacted, the BoR does not apply to women or slaves? Neither were citizens. Under the Scalia version of “original intent,” does that mean that we should continue to deny women the rights guaranteed by the BoR?

The issue arises due to their illegal entry into this country, and their status as fugitives that derives therefrom.

Generally speaking, as a county we have declared that there are certain circumstances under which the government may be permitted to deny an individual the free exercise of his rights; Generally speaking, those who are fugitives from justice exist under just such a circumstance.

So, it therefore follows logically that, at least under present jurisprudence, the courts would rule against the criminal alien attempting to purchase firearms.

Thus, we have two questions to ask ourselves: To what degree, and under what circumstances, should we permit the government to deprive individuals of their rights; AND, stipulating that criminal aliens who are fugitives from justice qualify for such denial of rights, what, if anything, should we do to remedy the situation?

Personally, I understand and sympathize with Bruce’s argument, but it seems to me that he ignores the fact that we, being western society as a whole, have setup a system by which men may be deprived of their rights if their behavior justifies such action from the government acting for society as a whole. To wit, our legal system, which draws its roots on over 800 years of English common law, dating back to before the penning of the Magna Carta in the 13th century of the common era.

Thus, the issue isn’t whether criminals may be debarred the use of arms, the question is TO WHAT DEGREE they may be debarred the use of arms.

As it stands, USC 922 CLEARLY states that it is an unlawful act to sell or otherwise dispose of a gun to a criminal alien, as well as mere possession of a firearm by such a criminal alien ALSO being illegal.

That said, I’m not a fan of USC 922; The problem though, is that there are really only two avenues by which it can be invalidated; it must either be repealed, or declared unconstitutional by the courts.

I’ll imagine a line around my neighborhood. Then I’ll walk around giving everyone who already lives here a piece of paper saying they have all the rights and freedoms of someone in my neighborhood, right which they already had.

Anyone new who wants to come to my neighborhood can, but only if I give them permission, which I can revoke at anytime.

Only the people who are already here have the full rights written on the piece of paper. New people are subject to whatever arbitrary whims I can think up.

Why? Well because I said so that’s why, if you don’t like the rules in my neighborhood you can just get out.

I ran this idea by one of my neighbors, and he seemed to think it was pretty stupid and a little evil.

well, who owns the land really? I bought the land my house is built on from some other dude who lived here before me and he did the same all the way back to some dude “buying” the land from some natives who had no concept of land ownership (because really, it is quite silly) or when some guy was given the land by order of his majesty in England who sent people to kill the native vermin that was living there.
So is land ownership not merely founded on who is the biggest bully?

What if the newcomers refuse to support or conform to the rules of your neighborhood? For example they elect not to buy or rent property as the current residents do. But want to enjoy the benefits of living in an idyllic neighborhood that the current residents have established and continue to pay for.

If they don’t obey my arbitrary and constantly changing rules then I’ll lock them in my basement until I decide to let them go…

Of course some people might resist, so I’ll need to hire a group of armed guys who will do what they’re told because “it’s their job.” You know, the sort of no necked thugs who beat up the kids with glasses in high school.

This might get expensive… oh I know, I’ll tell everyone in my imaginary circle that they have to pay me money for the “service” of protecting them. It’s a perfect system because if they don’t pay for my protection, then I can send the aforementioned armed guys into their house to shoot their dog, take their stuff, and throw them in my basement.

An army invading your country = illegal aliens affirming their inalienable gun rights. See how easy that was? War doesn’t exist. World War 2 never happened. The Japanese were just exercising their rights in Pearl Harbor.

The claimed numbers nationwide of 12+ million illegal aliens is bogus. The numbers are far higher. Personally, I’m fine with a diverse population representing various backgrounds. Unfortunately, a diverse population of multiple nationalities that lacks a shared vision, values in common, and a sense of unity is a recipe for disaster.

Amen… I’m the son of an immigrant father and native mother, and even my mom’s folks were immigrants once themselves.

This is the best country in the world and I want to share its greatness, but much like marrying into a family you don’t just exclaim your desire to join and do so overnight – there’s a process and it takes time but it’s ultimately (ostensibly) worth it.

The problem with your argument is that as a citizen I have to pas a background check to prove that I am a citizen and not a criminal to buy a gun. If you are not a citizen you’re unlikely to have an background to check and could feasibly be a murderer legally purchasing a firearm. I don’t like gun control but I do believe that the Bg checks are good for the most part.

Furthermore I am against anything that makes life easier on those who are here illegally. They are BY DEFINITION foreign invaders (yes I am aware that sounds very extreme) and deserve only contempt. If they want guns let them pack them before they come here.

Well now that is what makes this case interesting, LT. The defendant was brought here when he was three years old.
Now he is here, in Wyoming where (as far as he’ concerned) he’s lived his whole life. Apart from staying in the country without permission he has never committed a crime.
You say that he is a criminal because he’s here illegally, but how and when was he supposed to fix his immigration status?

I’m sorry it’s tough. Life is tough for kids whose parents are criminals. If an American kid’s mom & dad rob liquor stores for meth money and go away, he’ll end up in foster care. The kids you’re talking about still get to live with mom & dad. Yeah, there’s some culture shock, but that’s hardly insurmountable: military brats move to foreign countries too, and I don’t see you crying about them.

Your opinion is based on a false premise. You do not have to prove your citizenship, only your residency.The criminal background check only looks to see if you have a record of criminal activity, not whether you are a citizen; it does not verify your identity. Further, legal residents are allowed by federal law to keep and bear arms, a right upheld in a recent appellate court decision.

If it’s Bruce’s thesis that everyone is entitled to own a gun, then I suggest we start with children. Kiddies have rights too, don’t they? Okay, then, let’s arm every school-age child in America. And because gun ownership is a natural human right, the goverment can’t require training of the six year olds. Right? Sure.

Of course, guns for preschoolers is a preposterous notion. Almost as preposterous as guns for illegals. Or guns for prisoners while incarcerated. Or guns for violent felons who have just been released from prison for shooting someone. Or guns for people in mental institutions. The list goes on.

“Incremental reduction” my ass. Codrea may be right that if someone can’t be trusted with a gun then they can’t be trusted without a custodian. Well, I don’t trust illegal aliens without a custodian, or better still, handcuffs.

The metaphor with children strikes me as hyperbole.
I think we could both agree that an illegal still has a right to self defense. What about a scenario where an illegal justifiably used a gun in self defense in his home. Should the second amendment not afford him protection for possession of that weapon? I would think deportation would be in his future but would should he also face weapons charges?

Amnesty has already been given by non enforcement of the law, to enforce it now with out giving official amnesty to those already here would be unjust by the standards of common law, in my opinion. Americas laws are a nuts mixture of imperial and common law, so I don’t feel crazy saying crazy things. Illegals should be able to own guns here and back where they came from. Give them their freedom from tyranny while their here. End the welfare state and the leeches well leave and the good will stay. America can’t have immigration and welfare, let alone illegal immigration and welfare. Even Paul Krugman admits this, no joke.

While I think I understand what you’re advocating, it seems to me that your argument is fundamentally flawed.

If we stipulate that those who are fugitives from justice should be debarred the use of arms, then it stands to reason that criminal aliens are such fugitives, and should consequentially be debarred the use of arms.

Thus, we either need to change the laws prohibiting their behavior, or the laws criminalizing their entry into, and continued presence in, this country.

I’m a big fan of bullet points:
• The fact that Congress is overstepping its Constitutional bounds is demonstrated by tortured phrasing such as this, from 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5): It shall be unlawful for any person [list of persons] to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. Seriously, the almighty commerce clause simply does not apply to this subject matter!
• The Bill of Rights is a list of natural, God-given rights that do not depend on government approval, therefore they apply to everyone, citizens and non-citizens alike.
• Those rights can and should be revoked for people convicted of certain crimes.
• Illegal aliens who have not been convicted of any crime, including their illegal presence here, have the same right to self-defense as anyone else. That means that their mere possession of firearms should not be a crime unless and until they have been convicted of being present illegally in the U.S., or of some other qualifying crime.

I’m not without sympathy for the plight of Mr. Huitron-Guizar, who was brought here without his consent when he was 3 years old and has lived his entire life here. However, at 24 years of age he has had time and opportunity to weigh his admittedly poor options regarding applying for legal residence or citizenship. (I say poor options as some routes would require that he leave the country until his paperwork is approved, which can take years.) That said, he chose to remain illegal and now has to bear the consequences of that decision. While unfair in many ways, such consequences will at least give others reason to reconsider before bringing their minor children illegally across the border.

For example, Form 4473 bars you from purchasing a firearm if you’re under indictment or something like that and here in FL I believe you lose your CC privileges if you’re facing charges.

I’ll agree with you that somebody who hasn’t entered “the process” yet deserves the full compliment of rights, but only because that person is entirely indistinguishable from a regular, law-abiding citizen. In a case such as this, the moment the gubmint gets involved reality steps in and ‘rights’ go bye-bye.

“We the People” identifies the group who is presenting a compact of governance of the nation. Al,ost all of the Constitution is a blue print for the federal government. The first ten amendments were added after the fact to deliminate the power of that government over all peoples within its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this prinicple in finding that aliens (legal or illegal) are entitled to due process of law, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers, the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney. How does the right of personal self-defense differ? Fundamentally it does not—the government has no power to preclude “the people” from protecting hearth and home–and just like all the other rights, these are human rights available to one and all within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
I think we also need to remember that when the Constitution was enacted, there were no immigration regulations in effect–there was no distinction between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants, a principle inscribed on the Statue of Liberty. And this fact did not change until the rising tide of immigration became a flood.

The right of self-defense and therefore the right to keep and bear arms as a means of self-defense, is a self-evident, unalienable HUMAN right. It is not a privilege granted A CITIZEN by a government with a piece of paper (the US Constitution). Since illegal aliens are in fact Human Beings, they also have that right, and no government should try to take that right away from them.

On the other hand, I believe that an illegal alien should be arrested and deported when he tries to buy a gun. Not for attempting to buy a gun, but because the necessary criminal background check will reveal that he is in this country illegally.

The only reason most folks oppose “illegal” immigration is because they resent that they are being stolen from more than those who are here “illegally.” How about, instead of supporting everyone being stolen from equally, we support that no one is stolen from? There is nothing evil or immoral about traveling in an attempt to make a better life for you and your family. A national border is a completely arbitrary line made up out of thin air by the mafia which is government… and they claim the sole authority to steal from whomever is within that border. When someone gets away with not paying their vig, the mafia gets mad… and they have brainwashed a whole load of their subjects to get mad too. Every human has a right to life and property, including guns.

Get mad at government for stealing from you, not at “illegals” for figuring out a way to avoid being stolen from.

The government steals from us. It is difficult for them to steal from illegals. The money they steal from us funds the welfare state, which illegals benefit from (without paying in). Would you really care if someone came here in search of a better life if you weren’t being forced to support their welfare, medical, education, etc? Illegal immigration is a symptom of the governmental disease. We need to stop focusing on the symptoms and address the cause.

As far as the question goes, I believe every human has natural inherent rights which are not subject to the whims of any other person or group of people. Those rights include life, property, and free movement (the exercise thereof is only limited by abstaining from infringing upon the rights of anyone else).

Aha! Now I understand your thesis. In fact, I agree with it — up to a point.

My concern is that no one — citizen or illegal alien and anyone in between — should have the right to pick and choose which laws they might respect and which they can disregard. Illegal aliens made a decision to disregard a set of laws because it serves their interest to disobey. What would happen if tomorrow I decide that I have a perfect right to shoot anyone that I choose? That wouldn’t end well.

To Ralph,
The only laws we are morally obligated to follow is the Natural Law. That is, don’t harm others, respect others’ property, and don’t infringe upon others’ natural, inherent rights. Legal constructs that prohibit actions outside of the Natural Law (ie. actions that harm no one), I contend you certainly are free to disregard. While this may not be practical, given our strict and vindictive enforcement/revenue seeking state, it is not immoral.

Remember, there was a time when the law demanded escaped slaves be returned to their “masters”, if discovered. Personally, I would have been disregarding that law, in a big way.

I said in a post below that I break the law every, single day. In fact, we all do, even if unknowingly. Yet there is a difference between breaking the law and being a criminal. As long as someone is not harming others, damaging others’ property, or infringing upon others’ rights, I really don’t care what they do… regardless of what “the law” says.

Hey Henry, you need to put down the Scotch before posting. I want a better life too, in a city that isn’t overwhelmed with foreign gangbangers and 16-year-old unwed mothers dependent on welfare, in a county and state that won’t rape me with property taxes to pay for their purposeless presence. Either you are completely stupid, or you are a straw poster for a political advocacy group. Which is it?

I know a guy who owns guns, married a US citizen, has 4 kids, and owns a very successful contracting firm. He and his wife have always paid their taxes, as do all of his employees (no cash-under-the-table type deals.) They are not, nor have they ever been on welfare, food stamps or any other government aid program.

He’s an illegal immigrant.

He and his brother came to the US when they were 11 and 14. They were both arrested several times as minors for drug/alcohol related crimes, and once or twice for car theft and retail theft. Both have been deported several times. Both are back again.

Since they turned 21 they both have kept their noses clean, so technically I believe their records have been expunged. Except they haven’t, and in order to gain citizenship they were told they’d have to move back to mexico for at least 7 years before reapplying. The agent who told them that also said that, given their juvenile history, being granted citizenship is extremely unlikely.

I think the system that allows kids to come here illegally, commit crimes and be deported, and then come back time and time again is FUBAR’d. I sympathize with this guy and believe the system should be fixed to A) not allow illegals to continually re-enter illegally, with strict enforcement of penalties for doing so, and B) allow amnesty for those who can prove they’ve been here for years contributing to society rather than committing crimes and draining ‘government resources’.

As it stands, though, they’re illegals. Plain and simple. It sucks, but they don’t currently have legal status so gun rights, voting rights, etc. don’t and shouldn’t apply.

TR, that’s a lovely story. Would you like some anecdotes about thousands of illegal aliens who rob, steal, kill, suck the welfare system dry and work off the books for less than a legal alien because they’re not paying any taxes?

Boo hoo. So sad. Your friend received a $15,000 per year K-12 education and was the beneficiary of a long list of taxpayer-funded entitlements. He should thank the citizens of the US for their generosity and return to the country of his birth. The DREAM Act is an amnesty, which will grant the recipients of the amnesty all the rights of a permanent-residency visa holder, including family-reunification sponsorship of all of his relatives. The requirement of a college degree is laughable-who’s going to support the education of a foreigner at the expense of an American student?

I break the law every single day. So do you, although maybe it’s unknowingly. However, I don’t harm others, injure property, or infringe upon others’ rights. There’s a big difference between breaking the law and being a criminal.

Actually, federal courts do provide constitutional protections to illegals, including Fifth, Sixth, and Eigth Amendment protections regarding self-incrimination, due process, jury trials, right to counsel, and against cruel and unusual punishment. They probably have First Amendment rights to religious liberty, asssociation and speech as well. As to Fourth Amendment searches and seizures, I’m not sure, but I bet you can’t just grab their stuff and bust down their doors without a warrant if you want any evidence to be admissible. As far as I know, illegals have access to courts to sue generally for all kinds of things, if they want to take the risk.

In the Old Testament, the Israelis were not to have one law for themsleves and separate one for the foreigner sojourning among them. We’d call that equal protection today. Guns for illegals? I’m not sure I’m there yet, Bruce. But thanks for making me think. I always appreciate people who do that.

There is no “both ways” they are illegal to start with. You think criminals should have a right to own firearms? What part of illegal do You not understand? You want to bitch about the government shipping firearms to Mexico, then turn around and arm them as they come across the border illegally? What were you smoking when you wrote this? And, save the politically correct stuff for somebody else. Of course they have protection against crime themselves, but that does not include the right to arms in this country. They may not have been tried by judge and jury, but the act of entering any country illegally is a crime, period.

And if a kid goes and holds up a liquor store, he has committed a crime (or three), but he is not a “felon” and therefore has the right to keep and bear arms until his guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt by a couort of law. Why should “illegal” alliens–who are not illegals until so adjudicated under our system of innocent until proven guilty–be treated differently from all the rest of the ciminal element?

They are criminal as soon as they enter this country, just waiting to get caught. A would be felon is a criminal that is lucky if he/she has a day in court, rather than run across somebody with a firearm, and the will to defend. Does the yute get to keep his firearm after being arrested? No, he/she does not, don’t know where you are, but here commit a crime, lose the firearm. Reason illegals don’t get arrested, other than other criminal activity, not enough jail space for over 12 million. Tell you what, go to Mexico with no papers and buy a gun. Please. There are people of every nationality in this country, that go thru channels to become Americans. Anyone living here illegally diminishes their achievements.

I agree with the article; that the second amendment recognizes an inalienable, human right, regardless of citizenship. This would include non-citizens inside and outside the geographic bounds of the United States.
To allow the government to exercise the power to deny this right is a huge strategic mistake for citizens who would protect their gun, self-defense weapon, and tool rights.
Rephrasing a saying; first they came for the human rights of the non-citizens and I said nothing because I am a citizen,…

I find myself agreeing with the author. I think that the knee-jerk reaction of “Illegal Immigrants are bad” isn’t doing much to help widen people’s viewpoints here..

People don’t realize that the only practical ways to get into this country are to have family here, obtain a sponsorship or be wealthy enough to create 10 jobs in America. In other words, the archetypical blue-collar illegal immigrant from an atrociously poor country literally does not have a legal recourse.

Back to the whole three years old thing. There was this wonderful piece of legislation called the DREAM Act which would have allowed those who were taken into this country as minors (i.e. not on their own doing), with no criminal record to become green card holders contingent on maintaining that clean record as well as completion of a college degree or military service. Unfortunately, it did not pass.

As I understand it, being an illegal alien, or “undocumented visitor/whatever” is not a crime. That’s why we round them up and send them back instead of putting them in court and prison. Permanent resident aliens have Second Amendment rights in most states, with the rest coming due to ongoing court cases. Heck even SOB pirates and terrorists get hauled into US courts from halfway around the world instead of receiving military justice and/or summary executions.

Yeah, I can go for illegal aliens having 2A rights. But once they get collared armed but illegally here, they either get deported or placed into a program designed to have citizenship or legal alien status as an endpoint. Military service, civil works program, something other than back to the fields.

Bruce, you’ve left out one very important point: Huitron-Guizar is here illegaly by choice. He might have been three when he came here, but he was 24 when charged. He’s had plenty of time to rectify his legal status. His sister was here legally when he was charged. In other words, he’s a criminal, and not just a criminal, a felon. So, yes, I agree with SCOTUS, he should not have the same rights as other people. Felons should have some rights (due process, etc.) but not all rights (voting and firearms come to mind first).
BTW I am not a natural born citizen, I came here legally.

The God-given rights are those listed in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This was justifying the impending separation.

The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, yes, 15 years after the Declaration of Independence. The Bill of Rights says nothing about God-given or inalienable rights. The Bill of Rights pertains to the citizens of the USA as it is an addendum to the US Constitution.

Bruce, I respectfully disagree with your assessment, I have no doubt that the founders would not want a body of foreign national embedded within our country, here without our consent, slowly, quietly arming themselves, In the context of LARAZA& the reconquista movement, I really do not want to see illegals with recognized RTKBA. whereas I have no problems with a permanent resident alien possessing firearms, as they have demonstrated they are capable of following the rules.

It’s a Natural and unalienable right garunteed by the U.S. Constitution. But not the Mexican Constitution. Since these forigeners are NOT legal United States citizens, why should they be protected under a legal contract forged by the American people ensuring the rights of American citizens?

Because as you say, the Second Amendment protects a natural G-d given right. Saying that it only applies to Americans is admitting that the government can legitimately limit this right. Today they ban illegals and felons; next month people with a misdemeanor and the month after that speeding or parking tickets.